Minutes of the Navy Hill Development Advisory Commission December 17 th Public Hearing Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2019 6:00 PM George W. Carver Elementary School 1110 W. Leigh Street, Richmond VA Members Present Pierce Homer (Chair), John Gerner (Vice Chair), Suzanne Long, Mimi Sadler, Michael Schewel, and Dr. Corey Walker. Call to Order Pierce Homer called the meeting to order and welcomed the attendees. These included City Council member Kim Gray. Introductions Individual commission members introduced themselves. Approval of Minutes of the Previous Meeting Minutes of the December 16 th public hearing were approved. Disclosures There were no disclosures at this meeting. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) There were no FOIA requests since the December 16 th public hearing. Public Comment Period There were 16 speakers. Thomas Hogg talked about the rules of economic development and supports the Navy Hill project. Pamela Irving supports the project because it provides opportunities to the city. Jessica Shim is a Richmond Public Schools (RPS) teacher and opposes the project because it diverts funding from schools. Laron Moss supports the project because it brings jobs. Charles Royster also wants more jobs and training. Emma Clark opposes the project and talked about her concerns. Nathanael Harris is a Spectra employee and talked about that company’s diversity efforts. Michael James-Derano is a RPS teacher and opposes the project for many reasons, including its impact on school funding. Keri Treadway is also a RPS teacher and is extremely concerned about the project because of its expanded tax increment financing (TIF) district. Margi Rosebery is also a RPS teacher and rejects the project for many reasons, including school funding. Ben Hoyne talked about the lack of tenants for the proposed arena and opposes the project because Wall Street thinks it’s a horrible investment. Stephanie Albertson said that the City of Richmond could achieve beneficial ideas in the project, such as the bus transfer center and improving the walkability of that area, without building a new arena. Simon Hetzler said tax money should be spent for community development rather than a new arena. Ben Himmelfarb talked about unsuccessful past urban renewal efforts elsewhere and that Navy Hill developer profits would come from the public coffers. Freddie Robertson works for a workforce development company in low-income areas, and they are excited about the Navy Hill project because of its jobs and training. Katina Harris is vice president of the Richmond Education Association, and spoke about that organization’s opposition to the Navy Hill project. Its statement is at: http://www.navyhillcommission.org/Richmond_Education_Association_Opposes_Navy_Hill_Proposal.pdf Jack Berry spoke at the December 14 th meeting, and is President & CEO of Richmond Region Tourism. A letter from that organization supporting the Navy Hill project is attached. Charles Ware spoke at Monday’s public hearing and provided a follow-up email message, which is also attached. Other written public comments are also attached. These are from Stephanie Culbertson and Richard Rumrill.
Transcript
Minutes of the Navy Hill Development Advisory Commission
December 17th Public Hearing
Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2019 6:00 PM
George W. Carver Elementary School 1110 W. Leigh Street, Richmond VA
Members Present Pierce Homer (Chair), John Gerner (Vice Chair), Suzanne Long, Mimi Sadler, Michael Schewel, and Dr. Corey Walker.
Call to Order Pierce Homer called the meeting to order and welcomed the attendees. These included City Council member Kim Gray.
Introductions Individual commission members introduced themselves.
Approval of Minutes of the Previous Meeting Minutes of the December 16th public hearing were approved.
Disclosures There were no disclosures at this meeting.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) There were no FOIA requests since the December 16th public hearing.
Public Comment Period There were 16 speakers. Thomas Hogg talked about the rules of economic development and supports the Navy Hill project. Pamela Irving supports the project because it provides opportunities to the city. Jessica Shim is a Richmond Public Schools (RPS) teacher and opposes the project because it diverts funding from schools. Laron Moss supports the project because it brings jobs. Charles Royster also wants more jobs and training. Emma Clark opposes the project and talked about her concerns. Nathanael Harris is a Spectra employee and talked about that company’s diversity efforts. Michael James-Derano is a RPS teacher and opposes the project for many reasons, including its impact on school funding. Keri Treadway is also a RPS teacher and is extremely concerned about the project because of its expanded tax increment financing (TIF) district. Margi Rosebery is also a RPS teacher and rejects the project for many reasons, including school funding. Ben Hoyne talked about the lack of tenants for the proposed arena and opposes the project because Wall Street thinks it’s a horrible investment. Stephanie Albertson said that the City of Richmond could achieve beneficial ideas in the project, such as the bus transfer center and improving the walkability of that area, without building a new arena. Simon Hetzler said tax money should be spent for community development rather than a new arena. Ben Himmelfarb talked about unsuccessful past urban renewal efforts elsewhere and that Navy Hill developer profits would come from the public coffers. Freddie Robertson works for a workforce development company in low-income areas, and they are excited about the Navy Hill project because of its jobs and training.
Katina Harris is vice president of the Richmond Education Association, and spoke about that organization’s opposition to the Navy Hill project. Its statement is at: http://www.navyhillcommission.org/Richmond_Education_Association_Opposes_Navy_Hill_Proposal.pdf
Jack Berry spoke at the December 14th meeting, and is President & CEO of Richmond Region Tourism. A letter from that organization supporting the Navy Hill project is attached. Charles Ware spoke at Monday’s public hearing and provided a follow-up email message, which is also attached. Other written public comments are also attached. These are from Stephanie Culbertson and Richard Rumrill.
Latest Information from City Administration and Developer This was mentioned during the meeting. Responses to recent Navy Hill commission questions were submitted on December 17th and are available at: http://navyhillcommission.org/Navy_Hill_Commission_Questions-Submitted_12-17-19.pdf City Administration also provided a memorandum to Julie Timm (GRTC CEO) dated November 30, 2019 that summarizes the status of the process to determine whether a suitable location for a GRTC transfer facility within Navy Hill can be identified and chronology of the discussions to date on the topic of locating a GRTC transfer station within the Navy Hill redevelopment project. This is at: http://www.navyhillcommission.org/GRTC_Memorandum_11-30-19_Memo_to_Julie_Timm_GRTC_with_attachments.pdf It also sent a copy of Sections 10.3 and 10.4 in the Development Agreement concerning minority business enterprise and emerging small business participation, compliance monitoring and reporting: http://www.navyhillcommission.org/MBE-ESP_Development_Agreement_References.pdf City Administration also provided a link to the GRTC 2018-2028 Transit Development Plan: http://ridegrtc.com/media/annual_reports/GRTC_Transit_Development_Plan_2018_2028.pdf Adjournment Audio Recording of Entire Public Hearing Available at: http://www.navyhillcommission.org/2019-12-17_Navy_Hill_Commission_Hearing.mp3
(UUUUUr • 1 REGION ~TOURISM 401North3rd Street P: 804.782.2777
Richmond, VA 23219 F: 804.780.2577
VisitRichmondVA.com
December 18, 2019
Dear Richmond City Council Member:
You have by now heard a broad spectrum of viewpoints about the proposed Navy Hill development. would like to address the proposal from a narrower point of view - from those of us charged with promoting the Richmond Region to the almost 8 million visitors that contribute $2.5 billion dollars annually to our local economy. Please consider the following:
• Hotel capacity. One of the cornerstones of the development is a 525-room Hyatt Hotel. The addition of such an anchor hotel is critical if the region is going to compete for the hundreds of conferences and conventions that go up for bid each year. Currently, the 600 rooms that are available near the Convention Center are substantially inadequate, putting Richmond at a serious disadvantage and severely limiting the number and size of large meetings that we can compete. Notably, this hotel would be constructed without any financial investment or risk from the City, an arrangement that is unthinkable in this day and age. Consider the fact that Norfolk recently agreed to put up $110 million to help finance the new Hilton. That is the kind of investment that cities around the country are willing to make in order to make the funding of these large hotels financially viable. The Navy Hill development asks for no such City investment and has raised $900 million of its own financing.
• Sports tourism. Tourism related to athletic events is surging. Richmond has seen some of our highest hotel occupancy rates surrounding sports events, which represents 60% of Richmond Region Tourism bookings. Having a first-class arena would present opportunities that we have not seen for decades. In its heyday, the Richmond Coliseum played host to NCAA, CIAA and other intercollegiate tournaments and games as well as those at the high school level. Such events not only attract television audiences, allowing us to showcase Richmond to audiences around the country, but they also attract tourist dollars. Last year's CIAA tournament in Charlotte, for example, brought 140,000 visitors and generated some $50 million in economic activity to that city. A new arena allows us to compete for that tournament and many, many more like it.
• Quality of life. Richmond needs a new arena. The Coliseum outlived its usefulness years ago, and based on objective assessments, it is beyond repair. The fact is, arenas are a public amenity that contribute not only to a community's economic vitality but also to its quality of life, attracting sporting events, concerts and large-scale community events that are popular among local citizens. Richmond is the 54th biggest market in the country, and we are among just a handful that do not have an arena as a centerpiece of community's life. Why should Richmonders have to travel to Charlottesville or Washington to see major acts and events? Richmond is a first-class city, and our citizens deserve first-class amenities.
Navy Hill represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take Richmond to the next level. If you see fit to reject it, then where do we go from here?
lby,
J erry nt EO, Richmond Region Tourism
Navy Hill Considerations Stephanie & Mark Culbertson_murdoch-Kitt <[email protected]> Tue 12/17/2019 9:31 PM To: All Members <[email protected]> Hello,
My name is Stephanie Culbertson and I live in the 3rd district. Please consider the following:
There are several advantages to the project, but they can be achieved without having the city pay for a new coliseum (especially since there is already JPJ in Charlottesville, the Hampton Coliseum, and the Verizon Center in DC).
Jobs and skilled trades training- have those jobs and skills be applied to new/renovated schools, a bus transfer center, and adjusting the streets of Navy Hill to increase walkability. There is no need for a coliseum.
Bus transfer center- the city doesn't need the NH District Corp. to under take this project. Improved walkability- the city can get a state grant and fund this without the involvement of the NH District Corp.
If the city has hundreds of millions of dollars it's willing to spend... Using that money in the ways listed above will do more for residents than a coliseum that many will not be able to afford to attend.
Red Flags:
Why aren't private investors willing to undertake this project? If it was likely to make money, it seems like they would.
Why aren't the counties of Henrico, Hanover, and Chesterfield financially contributing? Their residents would also be working jobs generated by this project. Are they shrewd enough to know the numbers don't add up?
Why are there so many stories of ghostwritten letters by prominent people in support of this project? Doesn't this imply that the support for it isn't genuine? The same can be said for the reports that people have been paid to show up to meetings in support of the project.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider these matters.
I wish to extend comments I made at the public hearing on January 16, 2019, as wasrequestedbymembersofthecommissionwhowerepresentatthattime.Asyoumayrecall,Imadetworequestsofthecommission:
2.--thatthecommissionaddressquestionspresentedbywell-respectedarchitecturecriticEdwinSlipekinaNovember26,2019articleinStyleWeekly.I do not have the time or resources to complete a comparative facilities study myself.However,asaformerAICPcertifiedplanner,Ihavereadmanyarticlesindicatingthatcoliseumand sports arena projects seldom return promised benefits. The proposed Navy Hillcomponentisthekeypartofa$1.5billionplanthatwouldrequirededicationoftaxrevenuesfroman80-blockTIFFareaforaperiodofatleast30years.ThisTIFFareacomprisesmostoftheRichmondcentralbusinessdistrict.ProponentshavearguedthatfinancingofthisprojectthroughanIDA,andthroughthesaleofnon-recoursebonds,wouldcomeatnorisktothecity.It isclear,however,thattaxrevenuesthatcouldotherwisefundmuch-neededinfrastructureimprovementsacrossthecitywouldbereservedfordebtserviceonthisproject.Itisnotcleartomethatanewcoliseumwoulddefrayanyofthecostsofconstructionandoperation.AsImentionedinmyremarks,thereareatleast41coliseumfacilitiesintheUnitedStateswithaseatingcapacityof16,000ormore.TheNavyHillproponentshaveprovidedfewdetailsto support their construction cost estimates. An examination of comparable size facilitiesreveals that therehasbeenawide range incosts. NewYorkCity’sBarclayCentercost$1.1billion, with an average facility cost in 2018 dollars of roughly $300 million. Costs are, ofcourse, dependent upon the design of each facility, which is in turn determined by theintendeduses{concertuse,vs.sportsusageforbasketball,etc.}.Ibelievethatthereisaquitelimited market for musical events in large arenas. The Grateful Dead concert era may bebehind us. Onemust consider, also, that there are competing coliseum facilitieswithin anhours’driveofRichmond.ThestateuniversitysubsidizedJohnPaulJonesCenterseatsupto14,593,andwasconstructedfairlyrecentlyatacostof$178million,ofwhichalargeportionwasagiftbyawealthydonor.TheCharlottesvillefacilityhasreceivedrelativelygoodrevuesasamusicvenue,butitalsoservesasauniversityconvocationcenter,andasthehomeofUVAbasketball.Inthepastyear,Ihavemyselfattendedlivemusiceventsonmorethanfiftydaysthis year. It isonly slightlymore inconvenient forme todrive toCharlottesville foramusiceventthantodrivetodowntownRichmondandpark.
RichmondisalsowithincloseproximitytocoliseumsinWilliamsburg,Hampton,andVirginiaBeach. The Hampton Coliseum provides an interesting comparison to the current, disusedRichmondColiseum. Bothwere built in the same era of civic boosterism, opening in 1969,costingabout$180millionin2018dollars,andseating9,800forsportseventsand13,800forconcerts. TheHamptonColiseum’s rounddesign ismuch like thatof thecurrentRichmondColiseum,andIcanattesttothefactthatithashorribleacoustics.AcomparisonofoperationsoftheHamptonandRichmondfacilitieswouldseemtobeinorder.RichmondisverymuchintheshadowofWashington,D.C.,whichisservedbyanumberofcoliseumfacilities.DespitethefactthattheD.C.marketformusicandentertainmenteventsis much greater than that of Richmond, it should be noted that anyone desiring to see acoliseum-size music event can drive to Washington in less than two hours {depending ontraffic}.ThecommissionmightalsowanttoexaminetheoperationsoftheVerizonCenterinWashington to see how often it is utilized, andwhat type of financial return is seen there.However, it again must be noted that the Verizon Center is supported by a major sportsfranchise,andservesavarietyofgovernmenteventfunctions.IthinkthatabetterinvestmentbytheCityofRichmondandbytheCommonwealthofVirginiawouldbeinatruehigh-speedrail connection from downtown Richmond {not Scotts Addition} toWashington. ThismightallowRichmondtodevelopasadistantsuburbofthenation’scapital.Mr.MichaelHallmarkofCapitalCityPartnersandFutureCities,andaconsultantorpartnerwithNHCorporation,hasindicatedthathehadaroleindevelopingtheKansasCity,MissouriSprintCenter. KansasCitymightbedescribedasa struggling city,much likeRichmond {butconsiderablylarger}.KansasCityconstructedandownedtheinfamousKemperCenter,whichwascompletedin1974,butcollapsedshortlythereafter.Thisfacilitywassubsequentlyrebuilt,andnowoperatesasasportsarena{basketballcourtsfornon-professionalenthusiasts}.TheSprintCenterwasopenedin2007,alsoownedbyKansasCity,MO.Itcost$333millionin2018dollars, approximately, and has capacities of 19,252 for concerts and 18,972 for basketball.ThesefiguressuggesttomethattheactualcostoftheproposedRichmondfacilitywouldbeabout $380million. The Sprint Centerwas intended to be the home of an NBA expansionteam,buthasneverattractedone.Acloseexaminationoftheoperationsrecordofthisfacilitywouldseemappropriate.My cursoryexaminationof coliseum facilitiesbroughtmyattention to a17,459 facility inSeattle, Washington that has closed after a public investment of more than $250 million.Thereare several coliseum facilities thataremoribund, includingone inSanAntonio,Texas.SanAntoniohasavibrantdowntownarea,andhasastrongerlocaleconomythanRichmond.However, its coliseumhas been described as awhite elephant. This is another facility thatshould be scrutinized by the Navy Hill Commission before a recommendation is made toRichmondCityCouncil.Iwas provided a copy of a response toEdwin Slipek’s StyleWeekly article, prepared byMichaelHallmark.IunderstandthatacopyofthisresponsehasbeenprovidedtotheNavyHill
Commission. I wish to address each point of this reply in turn. I hope that the Navy HillCommissionwillalsoconsiderandaddresseachpoint.First,Iwouldarguethatretentionofthecurrentcoliseumfacilityisapreferablealternativeto the plan advanced by Navy Hill Corporation. It has not been argued that the currentcoliseum is structurally unsound {like the original design of the Kemper Center}, although itwas never a great design, in my opinion. The round design is not ideal for music halls{although it works fine for London’s Albert hall}. However, without altering the majorstructuralcomponents,itshouldbepossibletoinstallabetterseatingarrangement,toprovidebetter and more modern lighting, to lighten the always-gloomy dark brick interior, and toreplaceoutdatedrestroomand foodanddrink facilities. Thiscouldprovideamoderate-sizearenafacilityatamuchlowercost.HallmarkdidnotanswerSlipek’sfirstquestion,however,whichwastoquestionwho incitygovernmentmadethedeterminationthat thecoliseum isobsolete.ItisincumbentupontheNavyHillCommissiontoconsideralternativestotheNavyHillPlan.Second, it is clear thatHallmarkhasprovidedany real evidence to support theargumentthattheCityofRichmondneedsacoliseum.AsSlipeksaidinhisarticle,“therehasbeenlittlegroundswellfromindividualsororganizationscallfor(thecoliseum’s)reopening.”Thirdly, as I stated above, there has been no argumentmade that the current RichmondColiseum is structurally deficient, or “operationallywrong (toquote Slipek}.” Where is theevidencetosupporttheproposed17,500seatcoliseumdesign?Fourth, the Navy Hill proponents have not provided a detailed analysis of the existingcoliseum’soperatinghistory,other thannoting than in its last yearofoperationattendancedropped to a total of 320,000, with a stated operations loss of $512,000. As far as I amconcerned, these figures serve only to indicate that Richmond may not need a coliseum.Someof themore recentcoliseumevents, suchasgiant truckexhibitions,havepresentedamajorpublicsafetyrisk,withlittleornofinancialreturntothecity.Fifth, it is clear that the Navy Hill project has been developed in a manner that wouldcoordinatewith other desired city projects. Including disposition of the Arthur Ashe Center{whichasbeenproposed fordemolition},and theDiamondbaseball stadium{alsoproposedfordemolitionandreplacement}.It isunfortunatethattheNavyHillproposalwasnotmadeduringthetimethatVCUdevelopedtheSlagleCenter.Indeed,theSlagleCentercouldhandlemany of the events that might be attracted to a replacement {or renovated} RichmondColiseum.Sixth, I have seen no information about which entities were solicited to provide adevelopmentproposalfortheNavyHillarea. IamalsounawareofthemakeupofthenavyHillCorporation,norofthesourcesoffundingforthisorganization.AmajorplayeristheCEOofDominionEnergy,andtheNavyHillplanhasbeenlinkedinnewsarticlestotheconstructionof a second downtown headquarters tower that would be a part of the Dominion Energy
headquarters.DominionEnergyisaregulatedutility.Itsincomeisderivedfromtaxpayersandratepayers across the Commonwealth. Movement of this regulated monopoly into landdevelopment schemes,andparticularlyones financed through realestate taxmeasures thataffectDominionEnergydirectly,appearsunseemly.TheCommissionshouldlookintoanytaxbenefits thatDominion Energymight gain through the TIFF scheme, and especiallywhetherthiswould in anyway fix the levelof taxation in anyway thatwouldplaceotherRichmondtaxpayersatacomparativedisadvantage.Holdingoutconstructionofthesecondtowerasameansofgainingapprovalforaprojectthatmightbenefitacorporation,oritsofficers,seemsextortionateratherthanpublic-serving.Seventh,parkingwillcertainlybeanissueinthedevelopmentoftheNavyHillarea.Iagreethat shared-use parking should be an objective of any development plan for the area. Theinformation provided to date by NH Corporation seems to be lacking in detail. Howmanyspaceswouldbeprovided,andwhere?Howwouldthesespacesbeaccessed?Whatwouldbedonewiththeexistingcity-ownedparkinggarages?Howwouldparkingneedsforcityhall,citycourts,andlocalbusinessbemetduringconstructionoftheNavyHillproject?Eighth, Slipek asked if the entirety of theNavyHill plan failed to gain approval, is there awillingness to go forward with components other than the coliseum. Hallmark’s responseseems to indicate that the NH Corporation would not move forward without the coliseumcomponent.Ninth,Slipekaskswhethera9thStreetMarketplaceglass-houseadditiontotheBluesArmoryshouldbedemolished.ItappearsthattheNHCorporationplancallsfordemolitionoftheglasshouse,andestablishmentofapedestrian-onlystreetontheformerlocationof6thStreet.AsaRichmond taxpayer and citizen, I would argue that restoration of the Armory,whichwouldprovideamusicvenueofasizewhichwouldcomplementandsupportexistingvenues,wouldprovide a useful amenity to Richmond’s downtown. It would preserve an historic andarchitecturally interesting building. Hallmark indicates that the Blues Armory would beattached to the prosed 500-room convention hotel. It is my opinion that the merits ofconstructing a 500-room hotel with public financing or subsidization should be closelyscrutinized.CovenantsshouldbeplacedontheBluesArmorybuildingandparceluponwhichitsits,thatwouldprohibititsdestructionintheeventthatanewhoteltransferredownershipinthefuture,orwasitselfslatedfordemolition.Tenth, HallmarkandSlipekagreethatthedepressedroadwaysectionofEastLeighStreetshouldbeeliminated.DepressedstreetsectionsarecommoninEuropeancities.Iseenothingwrongwiththisone.Eleventh,SlipekinterjectedtheproposedBridgeParkschemeintoconsiderationoftheNavyHillplan.Placingmorestructuresintoawhitewaterrivercouldpresentsubstantialdangerstorecreationalboaters, likemyself,whousethissectionoftheJamesRiver. Theprojectwouldbehugelyexpensive,and,inmyopinion,shouldnotbegivenprecedenceoverotherpriorities
contained in the Richmond Riverfront Plan. This is not to say that a reconfiguration of theexisting9thStreet{Manchester}Bridgetoprovideagreenwayiswithoutmerit.Twelfth, Slipek askswhether the coliseum should be a regional project. Hallmark arguesthat the city would and should be the sole “beneficiary” of the project. This leavesunansweredthequestionofwhethersurroundingsuburbanjurisdictionsmightbeinducedtoparticipateinacoliseumproject.If,forexample,theexistingcoliseumwastoberetained,andrenovated, thismight be accomplished through establishment of a regional authority. ThecurrentRichmondConventionCenterwasconstructedwith regionalparticipation,andmightalso be placed under the aegis of a regional authority. I personally think that the idea ofmergingHenricoCountyand theCityofRichmond shouldbe reexamined, and shouldbeanultimategoalofresidentsofthecityandoftheregion.In his thirteenth question, Stipek notes that the John Marshall Courthouse {like manymodern buildings} has safety and security deficiencies that were not noted when it wasconstructed,butwhichmayrequireitsreplacement.Hallmark’sresponsedoesnotmakeclearwhethertheJohnMarshallCourthouseisconsideredtobewithintheNavyHillplanarea.Hedoesmaintain that the city lacksbond capacity to financea replacement. Several regionaljurisdictions, including Prince George County, Surry County, and Petersburg have relied onstate funding {inpart} to finance courthouse replacementprojects. Hallmark says that theNavyHilldevelopmentwould improve thecity’s credit rating, but that thecitywill lack thebonding capacity to replace the courthouse until 2023. I would suggest that an adequatecourthousefacility,onethatissafeforusebyallcitizensandtheemployeesofthisinstitution,shouldbethetoppriorityforthecity.Slipek’s14thquestionaskswhetherdevelopmentofNorthJacksonWardmightbelinkedtotheNavyHillplan.Hallmarkrepliedthat“theboundariesof‘downtown’arealreadydecided.Certainly, the current Richmond 300 plans should address redevelopment of these areasadjacenttoaproposedtaxpayer-funded$1.5billiondevelopment.Finally, Slipek’s 15th question addressed the role played by the VCUMedical Center in theNavyHillplan.Hallmark’sresponseindicatedthatVCUhasplayedaroleindevelopmentoftheNH Corporation facility. What is unanswered is what entity would own buildings that areprosed for doctors’ offices that would be associated with the VCU hospitals, or what theownershipwouldbeofotherVCUfacilitiesthatwouldberelocated.IdohopethattheNavyHillCommissionhasspecificinformationconcerningthesepoints,asithasnotbeenprovidedtothegeneralpublic,nortocitytaxpayers.Ultimately,thequestioniswhethertheNavyHillCorporation plan provides for the best use of properties owned by the city, or by stateagencies,andwhethertheproposedmeansoffundingthisprojectissoundandinthepublicinterest.
